Zevachim 45: הִלְכְתָא לִמְשִׁיחָא?!

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 45

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna (43a) brings a disagreement between the Tanna Kamma and Rabbi Shimon with regard to a question about the application of piggul – inappropriate thoughts relating to time regarding a given sacrifice – to an animal that was to be brought on the inner altar but was being prepared in the outer courtyard.

The Gemara on yesterday’s daf brings another opinion, that of Rabbi Elazar in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. The concluding sentence on yesterday’s daf was Rav Naḥman quoting Rabba bar Avuh in the name of Rav who said that the halakha follows this last opinion.

Reacting to this ruling, Rava asks hilkheta le-meshiḥa?! – are we establishing halakhic rulings for Messianic times, i.e. when the Temple will be rebuilt?

Abaye responds to him by asking whether it would be appropriate to avoid learning any topics about the Temple service, since all of it should be considered hilkheta le-meshiḥa.

We explore instances of this concept in has and the Netziv’s dazzling insight.

Zevachim 44: כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 44

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara quotes the second part of a Beraisa which says, "Or perhaps one may bring only a Korban [and make it Pigul] which is like a Shelamim? Just as Shelamim is unique in that it may be eaten for two days and one night, so, too, Pigul should apply only to Korbanos which are eaten for two days and one night. What is the source that Korbanos eaten for one day and one night also can become Pigul? The verse "mi'Besar," "from the flesh" (Vayikra 7:18), teaches that even such Korbanos can become Pigul.”

We explore the unique role of shlomim over other korbaot in learning the law of piggul.

Zevachim 43: פָתַח הַכָּתוּב בִּלְשׁוֹן נְקֵבָה וְסִיֵּים בִּלְשׁוֹן נְקֵבָה

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 43

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishnah teaches that a part of the Korban that has no Matir cannot become prohibited as Pigul. For this reason, the Nesachim that are brought after the Korban has been offered, or that are brought alone without a Korban, cannot become prohibited as Pigul. The Mishnah records a Machlokes Tana'im with regard to Nesachim that are brought together with a Korban. Rebbi Meir says that the Nesachim can become Pigul because the Zerikah of the blood of the animal permits the Nesachim to be offered. The Chachamim argue and say that the Nesachim cannot become Pigul. They reason that since the Nesachim can be offered after the Korban was offered, they do not need the Zerikah in order to become permitted. Therefore, even when they are brought with the animal they also do not need the Zerikah in order to become permitted.

We trace the conceptual development of ritual purity from its biblical origins through its extensive elaboration in rabbinic literature. Beginning with the stark dichotomies of the Torah's purity system, the analysis proceeds through the prophetic reinterpretation of purity as moral category, culminating in the Talmudic transformation of purity into a complex theological and anthropological framework. Special attention is given to the rabbinic reconceptualization of purification mechanisms, the relationship between physical and spiritual contamination, and the emergence of purity as a paradigm for understanding human transformation and divine encounter.

Zevachim 42: שֶׁמָּשְׁלָה בָּהֶן הָאוּר

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 42

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We have learned that inappropriate thoughts – specifically thoughts relating to eating the korban in the wrong place or at the wrong time – can potentially ruin the sacrifice and make it invalid. Furthermore, thoughts related to the wrong time will cause the korban to become piggul – abhorrent – and someone who eats of that sacrifice will be liable to receive the punishment of karet – a Heavenly death sentence (see above, daf 27).

The new Mishna on our daf lists a number of things connected with sacrifices that cannot become piggul even if the person bringing the korban planned to eat them after the appropriate time.

Zevachim 41: ״פָּרֹכֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ״

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 41

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara on our daf discusses differences between the pesukim that teach about two sin-offerings that are brought on the inner altar, that of the High Priest and the great Sanhedrin.

In the study hall of Rabbi Yishmael, the following parables were presented:

Regarding the sin-offering of the High Priest the Torah includes details about sacrificing the kidneys and the diaphragm, which does not appear in the commandment about the offering of the Sanhedrin (compare Vayikra 4:8-9 vs. 4:19). This is compared to a king who becomes angry at one of his beloved subjects, but because of his love for him chooses to minimize the embarrassment.

Rashi explains that in this parable, the beloved servant is the Jewish people who are represented by the great Sanhedrin. The Torah shortens the description of the Sanhedrin’s sin-offering in order to minimize embarrassment. The Maharsha offers an alternative explanation and suggests that the beloved subject is the High Priest, and that the Torah clearly delineates the details of his sin-offering since by means of the sacrifice his sin is forgiven.

We explore parabolic discourse nd how it functions theologically.

Zevachim 40: ״לַפָּר״ – זֶה פַּר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 40

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Continuing their discussion about the inner versus the outer courtyard, Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda argue about the instructions regarding sprinkling blood. If one should sprinkle indoors but sprinkles outdoors, is this acceptable? If it is discovered after the fact? The rabbis disagree about the words that describe the courtyard. Does the Temple courtyard have a roof that might be breached? If so, would such a breach invalidate the sprinkling?

Our daf offers a window into how the rabbis of the Talmud transformed biblical ritual into a complex system of law, particularly regarding the bull offering for the unwitting communal sin (par he'elem davar shel tzibbur) and its relationship to the Yom Kippur service.

We explore how the rabbinic sources in Zevachim differ from both the biblical text and contemporary Second Temple sources like Josephus, revealing the distinctive hermeneutical and legal methods of the Tannaim and Amoraim.